'Picnic site that could have been so different' Mailbag.

I HAVE read the various articles relating to the picnic area situated in Litherop Lane, Clayton West, and I felt it time to remind Kirklees Council and the people living in the area of just what it could have been like.

In the early 1990s I approached Kirklees Council suggesting a plan to build a top class static caravan or log cabin site within Kirklees.

The site was to be open for 11 months of the year, so would not be available for permanent residence, and I was ready to invest many hundreds of thousands of pounds into this project and create new jobs.

After liaising with the council I was shown various possible sites within Kirklees - Litherop Lane being one of them.

It was pointed out that the council could not really afford the upkeep of the Litherop Lane site and so it was agreed that I would focus my plans there.

The area was ideal, being just off the M1 motorway, and the increase in people visiting the area would have been a boost for local businesses and for tourism within Kirklees.

I spent many thousands of pounds in developing the idea and submitting plans to the council.

It's true to say that there were those within the council who saw the bigger picture and wholeheartedly supported my plans, but likewise there were the usual 'you can't do that' brigade.

With plans submitted, the objectors came out of the woodwork and it seemed that this semi-derelict picnic site was suddenly the main area of attraction for dog walkers, bird watchers and keep fit fanatics.

An increase in traffic was one of the objections used - well there's certainly an increase in traffic now isn't there and it's far worse than would have been caused by the caravan owners.

After a site meeting with a handful of objectors, the council refused my plans.

They had the opportunity to develop the area in the 1990s but didn't and the rest is history.

So what was the ultimate result of the picnic area not being developed into a well-managed site? I suggest that many hundreds of thousands of pounds have been lost in local revenue and also a loss of tourism within Kirklees, while the local residents - some of whom would have objected to my scheme - have been faced with burnt-out cars, sexual activities of one kind or another and now a murder enquiry. Is the site still useable as a static caravan site? Probably, but the passage of time and in its present condition the investment would probably be tripled. Would I look at taking it on again? The answer would be yes, but only if I was guaranteed 100% that the council would pass the plans and not take notice of the objectors, who I have no doubt would come out of the woodwork again.

TONY WATSON Shepley